Voters Need More Than Two Choices

January 2, 2000

`Politics as usual" faces a revolutionary, and potentially healthy, challenge from outside the two-party system.

If it succeeds, the revolution could reinvigorate declining voter interest in campaigns and elections and could open government to welcome new kinds of leaders, laws, policies, attitudes and priorities. If it fails, it could further widen a gap of disconnection, apathy and ignorance between the government and the governed.

The revolution is being ignited by a massive, growing voter dissatisfaction with the traditional two-party system. That ought to shake up those whose careers are dependent on that system. Echoing other trends, a new telephone poll of 1,009 adults nationwide reported these results:

Forty-three percent said they would like a third-party candidate to run as an alternative to Republican and Democratic nominees. This is the highest number in an escalating 15-year trend.

Twenty-eight percent said "the two-party system is seriously broken and the country needs a third party."

Even if a hypothetical November 2000 race pitted "outsider" challengers like Democrat Bill Bradley vs. Republican John McCain, voter interest in a third-party alternative remained high at 43 percent. That compares to 45 percent when the hypothetical race pitted front-runners Democrat Al Gore and Republican George W. Bush.

Such strong support for a third-party candidate is a shocking vote of no-confidence in the two-party system and the candidates it produces. So says former CBS and NBC newsman Marvin Kalb, a director of Harvard University's Vanishing Voter Project, which sponsored the poll. For more information, check the Internet website, http://www.vanishingvoter.org/

The poll shows every major demographic group expressing strong unhappiness with the two-party system, especially younger adults. Kalb emphasized that the poll does not mean that four out of 10 voters would vote today for a third-party candidate, only strong dissatisfaction with the status quo. Minor party candidates still must find ways to tap into that dissatisfaction.

Americans may face a crowded ballot of presidential candidates Nov. 7. Because of Ross Perot's vote-getting in 1996 and 1992, the Reform Party is qualified to have its candidate on the ballot in most states. It is also eligible for $12.6 million in federal matching funds. Unfortunately, the party's credibility and momentum are threatened by infighting and candidates with strongly incompatible ideologies.

Florida could be a leader in the challenges to the two-party system for several reasons.

Besides Democratic and Republican nominees for U.S. Senate in 2000, Floridians confront an aggressive independent challenger, state Rep. Willie Logan of Opa-locka, and announced Reform Party and Libertarian Party candidates.

Republicans and Democrats have a shrinking claim on Florida's registered voters, with combined membership falling from 90.9 percent five years ago to 84 percent today. Meanwhile, independent and minor-party voters rose from 9.1 percent to 16 percent.

With harsh ballot-access rules eased in 1998, Florida's independent and minor-party candidates can now qualify just as easily as Democrats or Republicans, by paying filing fees or submitting a low number of voter petitions.

Independent and minor-party voters could play a decisive role in previously closed Democratic or Republican "primary" elections this year. If the only candidates who run are Democrats or Republicans, then all voters, regardless of party, can cast ballots.

Nationally, third-party and independent candidates could have a powerful appeal to the majority of registered voters, just over 50 percent, who stayed home on Election Day in 1996.

Increasing public dissatisfaction with politics as usual and interest in independent and minor-party candidates can pump new life into a political system grown stale. There is no reason any more to swallow the lie that having only two choices on election day is wise or necessary. It would be hard for even a diehard Democrat or Republican to make a persuasive case that the two major parties have shown a monopoly on political wisdom, ethical behavior or leadership talent.